Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did an interest in healthcare policy lead Robert Platt to a career in the law? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Primary Care Providers Win Challenge of CMS Interpretation of Enhanced Payment Law

With the help and support of the Tennessee Medical Association, 21 Tennessee physicians of underserved communities joined together and retained Bass, Berry & Sims to file suit against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to stop improper collection efforts. Our team, led by David King, was successful in halting efforts to recoup TennCare payments that were used legitimately to expand services in communities that needed them. Read more

Tennessee Medical Association & Bass, Berry & Sims

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

GDPR Top 5 Actions You Should Take Now

The EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect on May 25th. As most organizations are aware, the GDPR applies not only to EU businesses but also many companies in the U.S. While the deadline is quickly approaching, most organizations are still grappling with the implications of the regulation on their business. Even if your readiness efforts are behind the curve, the GDPR Top 5 Actions You Should Take NOW will help you begin your efforts towards compliance and help mitigate your organization's risk in the short-term.

Click here to download the checklist.

Chris Lazarini Discusses Whether Defamatory Statements Constitute Libel Per Se

Securities Litigation Commentator


December 7, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini discussed a case where defendant carried out a personal vendetta against the plaintiff following plaintiff's report against defendant for violations of securities laws. Following investigation and dismissal of defendant after plaintiff's report, defendant made defamatory statements to plaintiff's new employers that plaintiff allege caused his terminations from those employers. The court ruled the defamatory statements constituted libel per se and the plaintiff may recover damages.

Chris provided the analysis for Securities Litigation Commentator (SLC). The full text of the analysis is below and used with permission from the publication. If you would like to receive additional content from the SLC, please visit the SLC website to sign up for the newsletter.

Shah vs. Levy, No. 13 Civ. 2975 (S.D. N.Y., 10/31/16) 

*A temporal relation between a defendant's defamatory communications to the plaintiff's employer and the termination of the plaintiff creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the former caused the latter.
**Defamatory statements that charge a person with committing a crime or cause injury to his profession or business constitute libel per se, for which the party libeled may recover for damage to his reputation, humiliation and mental anguish. 

This case involves a bizarre story of Defendant's personal vendetta against Plaintiff in which he promised to "'follow [Plaintiff] to the ends of this earth to make your life as miserable as you made mine and everyone else's.'" 

Between 2007 and 2009, while the parties worked as research analysts at the same brokerage firm, Plaintiff reported to the FBI, SEC, FINRA and his supervisors that Defendant was violating the securities laws. While not disclosed in the Court opinion, it appears that Defendant was commenting about financial matters on one or more financial websites/blogs under various aliases during business hours. Defendant purportedly lied to his firm and the firm's outside counsel about his activities during their and FINRA's investigation into Plaintiff's claims. After finally admitting his actions, Defendant was "permitted to resign" in 2009. In 2011, Defendant accepted, in settlement with FINRA, a $5,000 fine and six month suspension. Defendant's BrokerCheck report reflects that he has not been registered with any firm since 2009.

In the instant case, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant carried out his vendetta by sending disparaging emails about him to two employers. Some emails were sent under alleged aliases, and claimed that the sender had reported Plaintiff's actions to FINRA. Plaintiff claimed that both employers terminated him because of Defendant's disparaging emails, and sought damages under theories of tortious interference with contractual relations and defamation. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that no reasonable jury could find that his emails caused Plaintiff's terminations. The Court denies the motion on the tortious interference claim, finding the temporal relation between Defendant's emails and the employers' actions sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation. The Court similarly denies the motion on the defamation claim, characterizing Defendant's emails as libel per se, for which damages to one's reputation and for personal humiliation and mental anguish are presumed. The Court leaves proof of the damages for trial. 

One is tempted to say that the key lesson of this case is: "No good deed goes unpunished."

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.